What is a LFTR? (Short, clear version for people new to LFTRs)

Featured

Nuclear power produces a million times as much energy as fossil fuels, per pound of fuel, without producing pollution or affecting climate.

Less radiation has been released into the environment from all nuclear reactors combined, over the ~60 years we’ve used them, in normal operations and minor accidents and major accidents, than from a single year of using a single average coal plant. (Coal ash is classified as “naturally occurring radioactive material”, NORM, so it doesn’t have to be cleaned up).

People died in the Fukushima area from the earthquake and tsunami due to fires from coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas. Nobody died (or is likely to die) from the nuclear reactor failures. One person was found dead at the reactors, from drowning.

As safe as our current reactors are, there are much safer reactor designs possible, that also produce dramatically less long-term nuclear waste. Some even use “nuclear waste” as fuel. Some have been built and tested. Yet we’re not using them, for political reasons and from inertia.

Our current reactors (light water reactors, LWR) use solid fuel in carefully prepared fuel rods, and are cooled with water. High temperature water must be kept under very high pressure, or it boils. Solid fuel traps fission byproducts, which stop fission with <2% of the fuel used; then the fuel rod has to be replaced. All the uranium and plutonium in the fuel rod, with all the fission byproducts, have to be stored for 100,000+ years.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR), including Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), have molten fuel that circulates through the reactor, so over 99% of the fuel is fissioned, and continuously refueled.

Unlike water-cooled LWRs, LFTRs are cooled by molten salt, very good at transferring heat. The salt coolant is several hundred degrees below its boiling point, so the reactor runs at atmospheric pressure. The fuel is strongly chemically bound to the salt, so LFTRs have no chance of “loss of coolant accidents”. Since the salt doesn’t boil, LFTRs have no risk of high-pressure explosions.

In an emergency, or for scheduled maintenance, turn off cooling on a “freeze plug” and the fuel quickly drains to passive cooling tanks, where fission is not possible. Power is required to prevent the reactor shutting down. This could be controlled by operators, remote seismic sensors, temperature sensors.

In a LFTR, none of the waste is long-term. Fission byproducts are easily removed from the molten salt and safely stored. All have short half lives: 83% are safe in 10 years or less; 17% (135kg or 300lbs per 1 giga-watt-year electricity) are safe in 350 years. Elements with long half-lives stay in the reactor, where neutron bombardment causes them to fission or decay into elements with short half-lives. (LWR leaves 250,000kg waste to store for 100,000+ years, per 1GW-year. Wow! See LFTRs No Long-Term Waste Storage.)

There are three possible fuels for nuclear reactors: uranium-235 (0.7% of all U), uranium-233, plutonium-239. LFTRs can use all three. LFTRs can convert thorium (Th-232) to U-233, or convert U-238 (over 99.2% of all U) to Pu-239, inside the reactor, no fuel fabrication needed. LFTRs could eliminate (fission) long-term nuclear waste from LWRs.

Thorium is 4 times as abundant as uranium, and virtually 100% of naturally occurring thorium is Th-232. Thorium is found with rare earth elements, in coal (far more thorium energy in coal ash piles than energy from burning coal), and in some types of sand.

In a LFTR, the reactor is cooled by a molten salt (no water used). The heat from fission turns a turbine to make electricity (like in a LWR or coal plant, or with more efficient high-temperature turbines), and/or is used for high-temperature processes (for example, desalinating seawater or making vehicle fuels from CO2 and water).

With no high pressures, no water, and materials designed for high-temperature operation, LFTRs will be much less complex (and therefore less expensive) to build than LWRs. They can be factory assembled, with modern quality control, and shipped wherever needed. A 220 MW LFTR would fit in a standard shipping container (think “18-wheeler”), a few more for the fuel cooling tanks, waste processing, electric generator and gasoline-maker.

If you include all the start-to-finish costs of generating power (but not carbon tax, pollution cleanup, or health care costs of using fossil fuels), electricity from LFTRs would be less expensive than from coal or oil or natural gas, per gigawatt-year electricity. LFTRs also require very little land, and no water cooling, so can be located where electricity is needed, or even deployed for disaster relief.

Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) designed and built a Molten Salt Reactor from 1960-1965, and operated it for over 15,000 hours, see Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. They demonstrated the design worked, materials, equipment, procedures, operations, safety, use of different fuels. It was found to be an extremely stable reactor (rate of fission automatically regulated by the natural heat expansion/contraction of the molten fuel). They turned off the fan keeping the freeze-plug frozen on Friday nights, left for the weekend, reheated the fuel on Monday and pumped it back into the reactor.

With modern materials, computer-aided simulations and design tools, modern manufacturing techniques, modern instrumentation and testing, and all the ORNL experimental results, we could build LFTRs and then LFTR factories, in 5 years. ORNL designed and built a MSR (most of a LFTR, just without the “thorium blanket” to breed fuel) in 5 years, with slide rules and good engineers.

(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says will take at least 20 years; but they don’t want MSRs to work, they want to keep LWRs going, and their high-power high-pay jobs; the NRC takes over 5 years to license a new reactor that is identical to another that was built. Maybe when China builds them and tries selling us LFTRs, the NRC will wake up?)

LFTRs are an excellent “baseload power” to combine with solar or wind power, and easily follow the electric demand (when wind/solar are producing electricity, LFTRs automatically generate less), to replace our using coal and oil.

Additional LFTR Information

See the Thorium Energy Alliance and Energy from Thorium for detailed scientific and engineering discussions, presentations, and conferences.

D. LeBlanc / Nuclear Engineering and Design 240 (2010) p.1649-1650 excellent technical journal article on MSR and LFTR.

See Kirk Sorensen @ MRU on LFTR on inherent safety vs. engineered safety systems, history of thorium reactors, how they work, and the benefits.

Google TechTalk – The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

Kirk Sorensen – The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn’t This Happen (and why is now the right time?)

TEDxYYC – Kirk Sorensen – Thorium 4/22/2011

See Kirk Sorensen – Introduction to Flibe Energy @ TEAC3 for a short, very understandable description of how the reactor works, including converting Thorium to Uranium.

Kirk Sorensen @ PROTOSPACE Entertaining while explaining the science behind reactors. Thorium vs. Plutonium and Thermal vs. Fast. Medical and industrial uses of most fission byproducts from a LFTR. Safety systems. How much money a company would make from operating a LFTR. Engineering tasks to solve in building a LFTR. 2-1/2 hrs

Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor, Kirk Sorensen

Thorium-Fueled Underground Power Plant Based On Molten Salt Technology, Ralph W. Moir and Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2005

Fast Spectrum Molten Salt Reactor Options, Oak Ridge National Labs 2011, for reactor configuration; economics and safety; salt selection and salt processing technologies; fuel cycle options; uses of reactor high-temperature output; performance comparisons with existing reactor types; used fuel disposition, separations, and waste management; proliferation resistance.

The Thorium Problem – Danger of Existing Thorium Regulation to U.S. Manufacturing and Energy Sector. Gov’t treats thorium as some dangerous radioactive waste (it’s among the Least radioactive elements), preventing mining and production of rare earth elements essential for industry (from headphones to advanced batteries to windmill generators). The Dept. of Energy’s budget is over 60% for nuclear weapons, not for developing clean safe sustainable energy sources to power the country. Thorium laws prevent jobs in USA, forcing us to buy from China (almost a monopoly on rare earth element production).

Google Tech Talk — Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor

Aim High! Thorium Energy Cheaper Than From Coal, by Robert Hargraves (available on Amazon)

Popular Science article, Next Gen Nuke Designs mainly about LFTR.

Thorium Remix 2009 – LFTR in 25 Minutes

American Lawmakers Warned of Emerging Nuclear Power Market Risks and China’s Possible Domination

“A consortium of nuclear power advocates is concluding a week of briefings today with members of House and Senate energy committees from both sides of the aisle, and members of the bipartisan U.S. Defense Energy Security Caucus. The group’s message: There are safer, cleaner nuclear power options coming available, and while many of them are being developed in America, they stand the best likelihood of adoption and commercialization in China.”
from American Lawmakers Warned of Emerging Nuclear Power Market Risks and China’s Possible Domination, 27 Jan 2012

LFTR — A Nuclear Reactor That Can’t Melt Down? No High Pressure Coolant? Consumes Nuclear Waste? Are You Dreaming?

Featured

What if we could design and build a reactor :

• that uses no water and so can’t have high pressure steam or hydrogen explosions,

• with fuel that can’t have a nuclear melt down,

• that fissions over 99% of its fuel so there’s no waste needing storage for hundreds of thousands of years,

• that can consume spent nuclear fuel from other reactors

Well, we’ve already built one, and we ran it for 5 years! (But you never heard about it…)

What Is A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor?

A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR, pronounced “lifter”) produces energy using a liquid (molten) nuclear fuel, not a solid fuel. LFTRs also use a coolant that remains liquid at atmospheric pressure.

LFTRs are designed to convert Thorium (Th-232), an inexpensive and abundant material, into Uranium-233 which can then undergo nuclear fission. Or, they can use spent uranium, depleted uranium, or plutonium, eliminating nuclear waste from solid-fueled reactors.

With liquid fuel and atmospheric pressures, LFTRs solve the safety and waste disposal problems our current (1970′s design) light water reactor (LWR) have.

With all the attention lately on nuclear waste, nuclear accidents like Fukushima, and producing energy without climate change, we need to look at nuclear energy not from our current type of reactors.

Most safety concerns of LWRs are from using water coolant; LFTR is a molten salt reactor (uses special salt as coolant). All the nuclear waste problems are from LWRs using solid fuel (less than 2% of the fuel gets used); LFTR uses molten fuel, so can consume all the fuel leaving only short-term waste.

How does a fluoride reactor use thorium?

from Kirk Sorensen’s presentation slides TEAC3

With a reactor design that is inherently safer, the expensive “engineered in depth” safety equipment of LWRs is not needed, making LFTR smaller and dramatically less expensive than LWRs.

We abandoned MSRs in the 1970s (we decided to go with the liquid-metal-cooled fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) which produced reactor fuel faster). We later dropped the LMFBR due to proliferation concerns and reactor control issues, but never came back to MSR, political inertia.

A test Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) was developed at Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1960s and ran for a total of 22,000 hours between 1965 and 1969.

Alvin Weinberg, who ran Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) while the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was conducted, was also the original inventor of the Pressurized-Water Reactor PWR used today (got the patent in 1947).

Of the Generation-IV reactors being developed, only the MSR has been built and operated.

People are working on the engineering to bring a full LFTR into production (an MSR with a Thorium “blanket” to convert Thorium to Uranium fuel).

FLiBe Energy in the USA plans to have a LFTR operational by 2015. The Chinese Academy of Sciences has LFTR plans — in 2010 they visited Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Chinese New Year in 2011 they announced they would be starting a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor program (and patenting every advance they make).

MSR modeling and design work is also being done in other countries, incl. Canada, France, Czech Republic.

Liquid: The fuel is Uranium in a molten salt, circulating continuously through the reactor, for over 99% fuel burnup, and easy processing of fission byproducts.

Fluoride: The salt used is made of Fluoride, Lithium and Beryllium, very chemically stable, very high boiling point (liquid from ~400° to ~1400° C), and essentially impervious to radiation damage. The high heat capacity of fluoride salts lets a LFTR operate safely at temperatures much higher than water-cooled reactors (1000° vs. 400° C) for more efficient electric generation and industrial use. Most fission byproducts chemically bond with the salt.

Thorium: A plentiful metal, probably a couple of grams in your yard. Among the least radioactive elements, commonly discarded as waste from Rare Earth mines. The reactor converts Thorium to Uranium for fuel.

Reactor: LFTRs are extremely resistant to nuclear proliferation (from mining to disposal) and produce only a very small amount of short-lived, low toxicity waste which is completely benign within 350 years. LFTRs run at atmospheric pressure, so much less expensive construction, much less expensive to operate. Passive safety features handle emergencies, even if no water or power is available.